A comparison of standard occupational therapy versus early enhanced occupation-based therapy in a medical/surgical intensive care unit: study protocol for a single site feasibility trial (EFFORT-ICU)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Admissions to intensive care units (ICUs) are increasing due to an ageing population, and rising incidence of cardiac and respiratory disease. With advances in medical care, more patients are surviving an initial stay in critical care; however, they can experience ongoing health and cognitive limitations that may influence return to baseline function up to a year post-admission. Recent research has focused on the introduction of early rehabilitation within the ICU to reduce long-term physical and cognitive complications. The aim of this study is to explore the feasibility and impact of providing early enhanced occupation-based therapy, including cognitive stimulation and activities of daily living, to patients in intensive care. METHODS: This study involves a single site randomised-controlled feasibility trial comparing standard occupational therapy care to an early enhanced occupation-based therapy. Thirty mechanically ventilated ICU patients will be recruited and randomly allocated to the intervention or control group. The primary outcome measure is the Functional Independence Measure (FIM), and secondary measures include the Modified Barthel Index (MBI), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), grip strength, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and Short-Form 36 Health survey (SF-36). Measures will be collected by a blind assessor at discharge from intensive care, hospital discharge and a 90-day follow-up. Daily outcome measures including the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS) and Confusion Assessment Measure for intensive care units (CAM-ICU) will be taken prior to treatment. Participants in the intervention group will receive daily a maximum of up to 60-min sessions with an occupational therapist involving cognitive and functional activities such as self-care and grooming. At the follow-up, intervention group participants will be interviewed to gain user perspectives of the intervention. Feasibility data including recruitment and retention rates will be summarised descriptively. Parametric tests will compare outcomes between groups. Interview data will be thematically analysed. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide information about the feasibility of investigating how occupational therapy interventions in ICU influence longer term outcomes. It seeks to inform the design of a phase III multicentre trial of occupational therapy in critical care general medical intensive care units. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12618000374268 ; prospectively registered on 13 March 2018/ https://www.anzctr.org.au Trial funding: Metro South Health Research Support Scheme Postgraduate Scholarship.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".